[mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

[Dave Smey]

(This is the post from over at the forums.  I *really* would like to do
serious RFC work in the forums and not here, but I am a man of my word.)

First off, let me say that I am very grateful to Don Redman for taking
this unsure RFC[?] and making it a real draft proposal on the wiki.

The draft is up here:

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalSt 
 Discussion

But, I think the draft there is getting a little murky.  We have a few
problems to solve IMO.

1) What is the definition of a "recital disc"?  Many of the ideas we have
tossed around on the list have been incorporated into a multi-point
definition that is, in my opinion, very messy.

My main concern is: Is "emphasis" on the performer really that important? 
What does that mean?  If we are talking about how big the name is on the
cover, doesn't that feel a bit trivial?  I suggest that we can live
without any appeal to emphasis.

2) Alexander's case 2 - "selections" or "highlights."  So far there are a
few detractors and no defenders of this.

3) The overall structure of the draft.  Especially if we end up killing
case two, the flow of information is unnecessarily complicated.

So, I've rewritten the whole thing, incorporating a lot of the existing
language into a new organizational scheme.  I put it in my personal
profile:

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DaveSmey

If Alexander's case 2 is excised, it will have two different scenarios,
"recital disks" and "classical covers."  For now, it has all three.

I've also simplified the definition of recital disk back to my original
language.  One apparent limitation of the way I've written it is that
there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for a complicated definition, so if
we feel the need to add more clauses we'll have to go back to a bulleted
list or something.

So, what do you think?  Should this become "the real draft."?

-DS